msb@lsuc.UUCP (06/29/85)
We are finding out in Canada, as they have in the US, that government
pension schemes are costing a lot of money, that with the aging of the
population
Government pensions will continue to cost more and more tax revenue
as long as the fraction of the population over 65 keeps increasing
and the real value of the pension is not allowed to fall. This situation,
sooner or later, has to become intolerable. I think it IS a good idea
to do something about it now. But reducing the real value of the pension
(including deindexing) is not it. And I guess that reducing the fraction
of the population over 65 would also prove unpopular -- at least for a
while! :-) :-) !
So what's left? Change "65" to another number! I propose that the
pension-starting AGE be "indexed" to some percentile of the population,
as determined by extrapolation from the last two censuses. (Be glad
we (still) have a census every 5 years, not every 10 like some vvv countries.)
There should be a requirement that it should not change too rapidly, say
by not more than a month every month, until it gets in phase with where
it should be.
Of course, mandatory-retirement-at-65 practices would have to become
illegal. I think they should anyway. In fact they may already BE illegal;
I believe such a case is in the Supreme Court's job queue now.
I'm 30, and I don't see why I should have to, or be able to, retire in
35 years on a government pension on anything like the current basis.
Or course, if things go on as they are now, I won't.
{ allegra | decvax | duke | ihnp4 | linus | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb
also via { hplabs | amd | twg | ... } !pesnta!lsuc!msb
Mark Brader and uw-beaver!utcsri!lsuc!msb